Capture 1 and Aperture 2

[rdubois]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apologies for dragging you away from the speculation about the M9.

 

I've been using Aperture for over two years but notice regular (somewhat compelling) references, including a monogram on luminous landscapes by Michael Reichman, to the superiority of C1 as RAW converter. Now I've done some comparisons by processing the dng's through the converters and then without any further adjustments exporting to full sized jpegs/tiffs and whereas C1 consistently produces slightly darker, more saturated images I cannot see any differences in detail that each program extracts.

 

Clearly I must be missing something?

 

Dubois

[Guest malland]

I also find that I haven't been able to see the superiority of C1 over A2 that many people refer to. Generally, I find that A2 is better in recovering highlights.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Scratching the Surface©

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[microview]

Capture One is now available as a free upgrade to version 4.8.2 (for the basic program). Incidentally, I've just purchased Silver Efex Pro for b/w conversion – a lot more fun than going through the laborious Greg Gorman procedure – and you get a Sampler Color Efex program thrown in at no extra cost.

[Shootist]

I with both Mitch and Dubois on this, along with several others.

 

Here is a shot converted in ACR & C1 and then crops. ACR is first in each set.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

 

The image form C1 was processed as a TIFF then saved as a PSD then converted/saved for posting. The ACR conversion was saved as a PSD then using the same action for converting/svaing for posting.

 

I really don't see anything other then all C1 images are darker but not just darker because of exposure, brightness, contrast or whatever.

Then only processing done to either conversion was what I use normally in both converters. C1 is set for sharpening amount 100, Radius 1 and no noise reduction.

ACR is set for amount 65, radius .8, detail 65, masking 0 and again noise reduction is set to zero.

 

I know this thread is about Aperture but the same discussion is going on about LR/ACR & C1.

Some swear by C1 but I just don't see it, overall, and don't particularly care to work in C1.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Shootist

[vla]

I'd like to second Dubois' and Mitch's observations - images converted in C1 appeared more saturated and more contrasty, but had a slightly higher propensity to blown-out highlights.

Like Dubois I expected to see much more of a different, especially since some forum members, e.g. jaapv very much argue in favor of c1.

 

having said this, i have to say that i personally prefer the c1 colors and punchier contrasts, i was not able to completely reproduce them with adjusting the conversion profile in aperture. i also think that c1 offers much more freedom in importing conversion profiles, e.g. to minimize the ir-issue.

 

enclosed 100% magnifications of a shot i took in northern brazil a couple of weeks ago. the first one is converted with aperture, the second with c1, default m8 settings, no further post-processing. shot was taken with m8 and 24mm elmar

 

markus

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Jamie Roberts]

I'd like to second Dubois' and Mitch's observations - images converted in C1 appeared more saturated and more contrasty, but had a slightly higher propensity to blown-out highlights.

Like Dubois I expected to see much more of a different, especially since some forum members, e.g. jaapv very much argue in favor of c1.

 

{snipped}

 

 

Markus--

 

I'm not (ever) sure what these web comparisons are trying to show, since the different dithering and detail patterns of output from converters (in TIFF) are usually quite obvious in prints of detailed subjects, but less apparent on screen.

 

And I think you have your sharpening settings different in each case, but it's obvious from the shots you posted that the C1 shot has much more detail and lower midtone contrast (the toe and shoulder in C1 are lowered and boosted like "film" hence their "film curves").

 

But look at the woman for smooth midtones, then look at the plants in the front and right for detail. What is apparently mush in aperture is clear in C1.

 

Again, I'd almost think you've done something strange to sharpening

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And I think you have your sharpening settings different in each case, but it's obvious from the shots you posted that the C1 shot has much more detail

 

And, Shootist's post above shows the opposite to me...the ACR crop has much more detail than the C1 crop...see bottom of pillar for example.

 

Jamie, I agree that I'm never sure what variables come into play when I see posts like this. I use LR (ACR), and am very pleased with results. But, I keep reading how others dismiss LR and prefer Aperture or C1. I guess the only way for me to know is to try it myself...but I'm too lazy too change what I have (and I like the results, so no real urgency to do so).

 

Maybe I'll wait to see what works best with the M9:)

 

Jeff

[vla]

jamie and jeff,

thanks for your comments. i definitely am an c1 rookie, and i'll check the settings. btw - you're probably right - tryin to compare details in pic resolution while looking at jpegs shared over the net can be misleading, maybe it's even pointless ...

 

markus

[rdubois]

Markus--

 

And I think you have your sharpening settings different in each case, but it's obvious from the shots you posted that the C1 shot has much more detail and lower midtone contrast (the toe and shoulder in C1 are lowered and boosted like "film" hence their "film curves").

 

But look at the woman for smooth midtones, then look at the plants in the front and right for detail. What is apparently mush in aperture is clear in C1.

 

Again, I'd almost think you've done something strange to sharpening

 

Hmmm. Now you point it out it seems obvious and your evidence seems very compelling. A1 seems to be pretty mushy in comparison. I've also resisted C1 because of the poor filing structure compared to A2 but I really see your point. If I still want to use A2 then presumably I can do the Raw conversion in C1 then export to TIFF and then import into A2. Is this route lossless or would you recommend ditching Aperture 2 completely? It's also a rather cumbersome route and a far cry from the present A2 simplicity.

 

It's a kind of big step as I know A2 pretty well and would have to start learning afresh with C1. Also in view of the cooling in the co-operation between PhaseOne and Leica will C1, in your opinion, continue to be the favourite converter for M8/M9 DNG's?

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Dubois

[Jamie Roberts]

And, Shootist's post above shows the opposite to me...the ACR crop has much more detail than the C1 crop...see bottom of pillar for example.

 

 

Hey Jeff--yeah it's so hard to do an A:B comparison unless you're printing a ton. Since I do print a ton, every time I do detail and colour testing, from a number of cameras, C1 wins.

 

In Ed's shot what I see is the typical colour contrast profile of LR... I prefer the C1 reds, and I actually think it has as much (or more) detail but with less contrast than LR.

 

Ah well Head of a pin a lot of the times, but not all of the times.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} If I still want to use A2 then presumably I can do the Raw conversion in C1 then export to TIFF and then import into A2. Is this route lossless or would you recommend ditching Aperture 2 completely? It's also a rather cumbersome route and a far cry from the present A2 simplicity.

 

It's a kind of big step as I know A2 pretty well and would have to start learning afresh with C1. Also in view of the cooling in the co-operation between PhaseOne and Leica will C1, in your opinion, continue to be the favourite converter for M8/M9 DNG's?

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Dubois

 

Caveats about Web comparisons aside, yes, you could do a "lossless" workflow by outputting TIFFs from C1 and cataloguing and managing in Aperture (and print prep from Photoshop or something else).

 

As for Phase and Leica's relationship, I have no idea what will happen in the future, but I'd be surprised if they're not cooperating on some levels and competing in others; I wouldn't expect to see S2 support in C1 soon, but even there if Phase thinks they can get share from Leica users eventually (upgrading to future higher-end Phase stuff) then even that might happen!

[rdubois]

I've really tried hard again to get along with C1. The interface is just so poor compared to A2 that even if there is a slight gain in definition (and now that I've tried over a few hours I can't seem to see it in the files that I've chosen to test) it just isn't for me. Perhaps it doesn't run properly on a Mac but to me it's an irritation from the moment I open the program right through the controls and output.

 

Nonetheless many thanks to all for your input.

 

Dubois

[sandymc]

And I think you have your sharpening settings different in each case, but it's obvious from the shots you posted that the C1 shot has much more detail and lower midtone contrast (the toe and shoulder in C1 are lowered and boosted like "film" hence their "film curves").

 

Jamie,

 

Yes, but that's characteristic of C1 though - flatter tone curve and higher sharpening by default than LR or Aperture. And a lot of people like that look (and, to be blunt about it, mistake sharpening for detail:rolleyes:), but those are just differences in defaults, not in what's achievable.

 

Sandy

[Shootist]

I've really tried hard again to get along with C1. The interface is just so poor compared to A2 that even if there is a slight gain in definition (and now that I've tried over a few hours I can't seem to see it in the files that I've chosen to test) it just isn't for me. Perhaps it doesn't run properly on a Mac but to me it's an irritation from the moment I open the program right through the controls and output.

 

Nonetheless many thanks to all for your input.

 

Dubois

 

I will continue to use C1 every now and then just to check for different/better/whatever output form other RAW converters but the biggest draw back for me with C1 is it dropping folders and files in ever image folder you open with it. Why on earth PO has not implemented a central cache folder is beyond me. Then you have NO saving of default profiles for each RAW file type you open. Right now, in it's 5th or 6th release of version 4, you have to go in and rename the programs default M8 profile, M8 Generic, to something else and then rename the UV/IR profile to the one, M8 Generic, C1 has set as the default. Just who doesn't use a M8 without a UV/IR filter. At least make the UV/IR profile the default and if someone doesn't use IR filters then they can go in for EVERY image and switch it to M8 Generic. But to not have a option to save whatever profile you like for any and all RAW files is just poor programing. Even in ACR I can select any profile I like for any RAW file type and save it as the one to use every time I open that type RAW file.

 

I also don't get the color wheel. I get color wheels, just not the one in C1. Oh no what have I done now. But I guess that is just inexperience on my part.

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie,

 

Yes, but that's characteristic of C1 though - flatter tone curve and higher sharpening by default than LR or Aperture. And a lot of people like that look (and, to be blunt about it, mistake sharpening for detail:rolleyes:), but those are just differences in defaults, not in what's achievable.

 

Sandy

 

That's all true Sandy, but what I've found in output matches my perception of C1 having 1) lower overall contrast 2) better colour (much better than Lightroom) and 3) more fine detail than LR.

 

Again, it takes a print and a solid workflow to really see the differences, IMO.

[Jamie Roberts]

I will continue to use C1 every now and then just to check for different/better/whatever output form other RAW converters but the biggest draw back for me with C1 is it dropping folders and files in ever image folder you open with it. Why on earth PO has not implemented a central cache folder is beyond me. Then you have NO saving of default profiles for each RAW file type you open. Right now, in it's 5th or 6th release of version 4, you have to go in and rename the programs default M8 profile, M8 Generic, to something else and then rename the UV/IR profile to the one, M8 Generic, C1 has set as the default. Just who doesn't use a M8 without a UV/IR filter. At least make the UV/IR profile the default and if someone doesn't use IR filters then they can go in for EVERY image and switch it to M8 Generic. But to not have a option to save whatever profile you like for any and all RAW files is just poor programing. Even in ACR I can select any profile I like for any RAW file type and save it as the one to use every time I open that type RAW file.

 

I also don't get the color wheel. I get color wheels, just not the one in C1. Oh no what have I done now. But I guess that is just inexperience on my part.

 

Ed--the good thing about having side files in a relative path to the captures is that you can move them around, or back them up, or put them on another machine without ever having to update a central database or "find" the settings. I much prefer just backing up a folder than a folder and an arbitrary set of settings. In fact, if C1 went to the central DB model I'd probably find something else

 

I'm in complete agreement with you, though, on the defaults. Why in heavens name I can't save my default settings in C1 is absolutely beyond me. But it's an annoyance in an otherwise great RAW processor, so I live in hope of change, someday

 

The colour wheel is only for correcting casts that WB can't take care of. Happens sometimes with mixed light, and when it does, the wheel is very nice to have to fix an overall tint or cast to a file.